Tag: Supreme Court

Wormtongues Gone Wild

Should this Court decline to grant certiorari to consider the constitutionality of Maryland’s assault weapons ban where (1) that ban is consistent with this Court’s recognition in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), that jurisdictions may ban “weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like”; (2) the Fourth Circuit faithfully applied New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass’n v. Bruen, 597 U.S. 1 (2022), to conclude that Maryland’s law is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of “regulating those weapons that were invented for offensive purposes and were ultimately proven to pose exceptional dangers to innocent civilians,” Pet. App. 69a; and (3) there is no need to resolve a conflict among the lower courts? [More]

Translation: Tyrannical Maryland Democrats want the Supreme Court to turn a blind eye to the state’s willingness to imprison and/or kill citizens for defying unconstitutional diktats and claiming their birthrights.

[Via Jess]

Desperation Looks Like This

Dems at War Over Secret SCOTUS Plot to Oust Sotomayor NOT AGAIN!Having spectacularly failed to get one woman elected to a top job, the Democratic Party is at odds over whether to push another woman out. [More]

This should be blockable if all Republicans stick together and militant Democrats let their feelings trump all.

Punt, Pass and Kick

Instead of taking on the next frontier of firearms regulations, the justices tossed a highly anticipated review of prohibitions on gun ownership for felons. [More]

The distancing from Bruen continues.

As noted before, the only thing the Supreme Court has to do to let infringements stand is… nothing.

[Via Antigone]

No Constitutional Reason Justifies Not Recognizing 2A Rights of Young Adults

Anyone who tells you 18-to-20-year-olds are not fully enfranchised citizens entitled to exercise their rights under the Second Amendment is a liar and an enabler of tyranny. [More]

Sending back what should have been a no-brainer makes me wonder which SCOTUS members we’ve been told are 2A-friendly are getting ready to disappoint…

So Much for Holding These Truths to Be Self-Evident…

The Supreme Court on Tuesday sent a challenge to a Pennsylvania law barring people 18- to 20-years-old from carrying guns back to the lower courts for another look in light of last term’s decision in United States v. Rahimi, in which the justices attempted to provide guidance for courts reviewing Second Amendment challenges to restrictions on gun rights. [More]

I know the wheels of justice grind slowly and we have procedures for a reason, but come on...

[Via Jess]

The Truth Behind the Garland v. VanDerStok “Ghost Gun” Case

This is not the first time Justice Barrett has departed from conservative views on the Second Amendment, values she represented herself as a staunch supporter of when she was nominated to the Supreme Court by then President Donald Trump. [More]

Except she didn’t, the gun groups did.

As with all SCOTUS confirmation hearings, they don’t ask the tough questions needed to elicit unequivocal answers.

As noted when cautioning against rubber stamping Gorsuch:

Typically in judicial confirmation hearings, nominees have been able to rely on an “out” giving them a pass on answering specific questions… Think of one job you’ve ever applied for where you’d have gotten it if you decided to play coy with the hiring managers. While it may be “inappropriate” for a judge to weigh in on a specific case before confirmation — for legitimate reasons, including not having studied and evaluated all the particulars, evidence and precedents against the “supreme Law of the Land,” — there’s no reason why general principles of understanding should be off-limits. Such hearings are supposed to be, among other things, high-level employment interviews, not pre-coronation ceremonies.

Gun owners may be paying the price for that… again.

Mayor’s Assassination Shows Mexican Government Can Only Operate with Consent of Cartels

Mexican prohibitionists ignoring the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act to effect U.S. citizen disarmament are creatures that can only operate at the behest of cartel monsters who decapitate to terrorize. [More]

Who thinks the Framers included the Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights so that animals from a failed narco-terrorist state abetted by treasonous domestic subversives could render it toothless through lawfare?

Daily Defense Redux

David Codrea and Mark break down today’s SCOTUS “Ghost Gun” Scotus Oral Arguments [Listen]

What’s that recurring line from Star Wars?

And from Michael G:

Most Justices Seem Inclined To Uphold the ATF’s New Restrictions on Homemade Firearms [More]

Let’s hope our feelings are misplaced.

No. She Can’t. Not in This Context. She’s Not a Gunsmith.

Based on results, ATF can’t, either.

She’s just wondering if “ghost guns” can also fire 800 rounds a second.

It’s OK to say “she,” isn’t it?

Breaking Some Eggs

Justice Alito Wrecks ATF’s ‘Ghost Gun’ Argument: Are Eggs and Peppers an Omelet?[More]

So are John Roberts and Amy Coney Barrett bent on scrambling things?

Mark W. Smith has some interesting thoughts, including “if the ATF theory is allowed here, then drilling a single hole in AR-15s to convert it into a machine gun means that an AR-15 is “readily convertable” into a machine gun and thus a machine gun. SCOTUS will need to issue a ruling to avoid this result.”

Mexican Standoff

Supreme Court Will Hear Gun Industry Challenge to Mexico’s Lawsuit – “Simply put, Mexico’s suit threatens to undermine American sovereignty and constitutional liberty, and it has no business in this country’s courts.” [More]

I expect our side to win. What I’m most curious of is what the Democrat judges will do, and how they will rationalize their arguments if they side with Mexico.

Between SCOTUS now taking on both this and frames/receivers, how any gun owner can justify not voting and letting Kamala Harris reshape the Court is beyond me.

[Via Michael G]

Private Parts

Throughout the document, Smith argues that the actions Trump took to overturn the election were in his private capacity – as a candidate – rather than in his official capacity, as a president. [More]

Speaking of acting in a private capacity, how is that not what election interference apparatchik Smith is doing, and why can’t (haven’t) Republicans and SCOTUS put an immediate halt to it?

Is This the One?

The Supreme Court is back in session as of Monday October 7th and they have a case before them in Snope v. Brown that could end all bans nationwide. This comes from a 4th circuit decision upholding the Maryland ban. [Watch]

There’s a huge difference between “could” and “will.”

Cross your fingers and wish for the best, but don’t invest all your hope.

[Via Jess]

Just Like the Framers Intended

For places that are newer, Defendants must point to regulations that are analogous to the regulations cited by the Supreme Court, taking into account that it is illogical to expect a government to regulate a place before it existed in its modern form. [More]

So, any building, parcel, street, city, territory, or state developed after ratification…?

What other articles in the Bill of Rights does this apply to?

Rapping SAPA

BOMBSHELL Interview: AG Of MO Joins The Channel & VOWS To Take SAPA To SCOTUS IMMEDIATELY! In today’s episode, we have a very special guest, the Attorney General of Missouri Andrew Bailey. He’s going to SCOTUS and no one is going to stop him [Watch]

Did they agree to take the case?

Since 2A is supposed to ultimately be about freedom, I can’t quite make the guy out to be a hero until I see some credible answers on keeping innocent prisoners incarcerated.

[Via Jess]

Pathway to Tyranny

The future of the Supreme Court is on the line in November’s elections. If Vice President Kamala Harris and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer are victorious in November, the independent Supreme Court that the Framers bequeathed to us will be a thing of the past. That’s one of the big reasons why Harris must be defeated in her campaign for president, and why Schumer must be demoted to Minority Leader. [More]

I forgot to mention: The Guardians beat Pittsburgh!

[Via bondmen]

The Games People Play

The Court should not grant certiorari to review at this stage but should permit the ordinary percolation process to continue and reserve its intervention for the point at which, if it comes at all, the courts of appeals are actually divided.” [More]

I understand what they’re doing and why.

It’s not them, it’s a fraudulent power-usurping system that allowed the first infringement to take place and has done nothing since but entrench and assail.

BATFE Slapping

Today, attorneys for Firearms Policy Coalition (FPC) filed a merits-stage Respondents’ brief with the United States Supreme Court in FPC’s Garland v. VanDerStok lawsuit challenging ATF’s “Definition of ‘Frame or Receiver’ and Identification of Firearms” Rule. FPC’s brief, available at FPCLaw.org, explains why the government’s Rule cannot survive scrutiny and must fail. [More]

Here it is…

Mark W. Smith of The Four Boxes Diner breaks it down for us.

[Via Jess]

Verified by MonsterInsights